Search public offers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses ordering (newest first), a data-visibility constraint (no payment amounts shown to anonymous visitors), pagination behavior, and that no token is needed. That last point is a genuinely useful auth clarification, though it omits any rate-limit or result-size context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then filters, then the visibility caveat, then pagination/auth. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of name or title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-param read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, paging, auth, and data visibility. It doesn't sketch what an offer record contains beyond ordering, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description enumerates the filter dimensions (words, category, type, platform, language), which helps map intent to parameters. But with 57% schema coverage it leaves gaps (e.g., the `limit` param is undocumented here) and the mismatch between its 'nextCursor' wording and the actual `cursor` parameter name adds minor friction.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the influencer-marketing offers') plus scope ('published on Vereel', 'creators can apply to', 'newest first'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like vereel_list_my_offers and vereel_get_offer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'public offers, what an anonymous visitor sees' framing implicitly tells the agent to use this instead of the my-offers siblings, and 'Use nextCursor to get the next page' gives concrete usage. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or a when-not condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.